I’d go with the Khmer Rouge. However, there are lots of ways to define “worst”:
- The Khmer Rouge was simply genocidal, and they were killing loads while in power.
- The Japanese Communist Party is very ineffective. Barely anybody in Japan even considers them. While their revisionism makes them akin to a SocDem party of any other nation, the staggering part is their size, that being as big as an after-school club.
- The CPUSA became full of revisionism after WWII.
Does worst mean fell into internal revisionism the most, was least able to grow and spread thruout the people, or least able to survive the USA? I mean, where does one draw the line between a communist party that is incredibly revisionist (ie, the CPUSA), or a bourgeois party that brands itself left-wing (ie the Movement for a People’s Party)?
Was the Kampuchea communist at all?
I mean, probably not. I was trying to think of where the line is between a Communist org that lapses deep in revisionism and a SocDem org that really wants revolution but doesn’t understand MatCon. It’s almost like the sorites paradox.
Not the worst but the most unfortunate is spartakus league.
When the attempt wasn’t made at all. It is always better to try something and fail than never to try at all. At least from failure you learn.
Ceauşescu, probably
Banned abortion
Was a dick to Roma people
IMF loans / austerityMaybe the Paris commune, but I am not very knowledgable on it.
On a sidenote, your questions do seem to be very specific, comrade. I don’t know how to word it, but there is something about the types of questions and their wording that seems off to me.
Paris Commune was fairly alright, but doomed from the outset when the organizers failed to secure further support from the military, police force, or larger public. The movement was incredibly premature, although the aims were noble and what was accomplished within the two months the government was in power was fairly impressive.
from the “USSR sphere of influence countries” i’d say Romania. it was still a lot better than what it was before but it had a lot of issues
Well, along with the good things Ceaușescu did (continue the industrializing process of Romania, offering work, housing, good education system, good sport facilities that put Romania in top countries in sport performances, paying the national debt of Romania etc), there are also bad things. He pushed the nationalist agenda too much (at one point in 1980 he made a parade saying in the honour of “2054 years since the creation of the first centralized dacian state”; compared himself with wallachian or moldavian medieval rulers etc). His cult of personality really went over the roof. He banned abortions, banned homosexuality. Plus, the biggest mistake he did was to approach western nations, to the point that Romania even received from the US “the clause of the most favourable country” (I think that’s how it is called). Yes, Ceaușescu did establish good relations with socialist countries (especially Libya, DPRK, China etc.) and he wanted to establish a bank for the developing nations to compete with the IMF. He borrowed money from the IMF, and that eventually fucked him up big time and he had to shorten romanian population’s food, heat etc to afford to pay that. Ceaușescu really distanced himself from the USSR and he also cleaned the state apparatus from the soviet functionaries. Although the so-called “revolution” was orchestrated mostly by the US and other west-european intelligence services (since Ceaușescu denied the perestroika) and his execution was decided by soviet revisionists and united states collaborators who imposed their people in power after 22nd december 1989, Ceaușescu should still be criticised for the bad things he did. He should be compared with other socialist leaders.
I vehemently disagree with saying that Romania was the worst. The comment you quote gives plenty of positives and reasons why it was in fact not the worst and many of the criticisms expressed are just as valid of other socialist states, e.g. Yugoslavia getting in bed with the IMF, or even China siding with the US over the USSR.
Most telling of all is the admission that, unlike in other socialist states where the revisionist governments just rolled over and accepted their own abolition, the West had to orchestrate an entire bloody coup and fake “revolution” to murder Romania’s leadership. Why, if he was such a bad socialist (and thus a non-danger to the counter-revolution) was he not treated like other former socialist leaders in Europe post 1989 who were too insignificant and powerless to even be worth killing or imprisoning?
And what is the line at which a socialist country “pushes the nationalist agenda too much”? Does China do too much nationalism when it celebrates its millennia long history? Does the DPRK?
It is inconsistent to on the one hand accuse Romania for distancing itself too much from the USSR (China did so even more, btw), while at the same time admitting that the revisionist Soviet leadership directly colluded with Western imperialists to overthrow and murder Romania’s leader (as they clearly also allowed the other counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe to occur).
It’s also strange to criticize Romanian socialism for such relatively (in the broader picture) petty things when there is one huge and glaring error made by them that i consider to be actually inexcusable and that has not even been mentioned here: Romania’s involvement with the Zionist project.
yes there were still plenty positives.
they did the same IMF fuckery as Yugoslavia did, got the same issues with rationing and lack of goods as Poland did and did away with women’s autonomy by making abortion illegal.
Vergissing van Troelstra, also known as ‘Rode week’ (red week). This was when Dutch socialists, led by Pieter Jelles Troelstra, tried to launch a revolution in the Netherlands
Khmer Rouge followed by Shining Path
Khmer Rogue was literally just Nazi Germany with a bit more of a strasserite bend.
Scandinavian social democracies and the SPD are examples of total failures of parties which once were revolutionary.
SPD?? what do you mean?
well, even if posadas didn’t do shit in argentina that’s gotta be it, right? ufos, aliens as revolutionary allies, nuclear apocalypse. posadism is one hell of a drug. and what’s even funnier is that there are still some posadistas in argentina, not so long ago i looked them up and they’re like 3 dudes (i think one was his son or related to him?) who meet and talk i guess, they can’t do much more lol.
South Park Mormon moment where the aliens do actually come down and go “No, actually, they were right all along; all Posadists step to the right of the red rope, thank you.”
